Post by New Statesman.
10 things you wish you didn't know about Michael Gove
The facts we've all been subjected to, compiled for your viewing pleasure.
Showing posts with label New Statesman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Statesman. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Mr Mehra, New Statesman, Leicestershire Police, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Responses, Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs, Bevan Brittan LLP, Mr Keith-Lucas
Although my name is mentioned in the following questions, I did not request they be asked I have not objected to them being asked.
Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP
Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham
TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.
2.What other advice has the Council, its officers or Councillors sought or received on any other internet publications?
Mrs Briggs responded “None to my knowledge”.
Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:
I notice the caveat “none on behalf of the Authority”, which seems to connect you to someone connected to Council; has someone written to the Mercury?
Mrs Briggs responded “I can only answer on behalf of the Authority and that is the answer”.
my comments:
1. that advice cost the council £2385.00
2. So if no action was requested why did Inspector J Monks feel the need to
take action?
3. Conservative Cabinet Member Councillor Gene Plews did, he claimed in
a rather fictitious police statement, I "have destroyed Oakham" and was part
of a group made of 9 people made up of Town Councillors, The Mayor then
Cllr Joyce Lucas and ex Mayor Paul Beech and their cronies, last year,
Class A bullying, I was not happy and neither were the CPS.
2.The second disciplinary meeting (of Aman Mehra) was on 14 June 2012.
1.Who requested this meeting? Why?
2.Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with the erstwhile monitoring officer and compliance officer of RCC? Is this true?
3.If this meeting was held at the request of Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem confidentiality so:
a) Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?
b) What were those concerns?
Mrs Briggs responded “Mr Mehra was the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation which had not concluded. The meeting which took place on 14th June 2012 related to that ongoing disciplinary investigation. The meeting was not held at the request of Mr Mehra”.
There was no supplementary question.
a)
b)
c)
I understand that the legal correspondent on the New Statesman has contacted a local blogger, saying the advice is deeply suspect; why didn’t you contact a QC why a jobbing solicitor?
Mr Keith-Lucas responded “Mr Green had contacted me to say that he intended to publish and he disagreed with the substance of the report. However, this could only be resolved in a court of law and that was the end of the discussion.”
Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP
Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham
TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.
Questions received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham
1) Re: Bevan Brittan Report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4:
“We have previously advised the Council in connection with statements made by Martin Brookes on his weblog …”
1. What previous advice has RCC, its officers or Councillors sought or received on Martin Brookes’ web publications?
The Chairman invited the Chief Executive of Rutland County Council, Mrs Briggs, to respond.
Mrs Briggs responded “Advice was provided on the possible course of action relating to the Mr Brookes Blog on 25th May 2010”.* 1.
Mrs Briggs responded “None to my knowledge”.
3.
(a) Have letters been written to Private Eye or The Leicester Mercury?
(b) If so, what was the cost of writing letters to these or any other publications?
Mrs Briggs responded “None on behalf of the Authority”.
4.
How much liaison, and with whom was the liaison conducted between RCC, its officers or Councillors and Leicestershire Police? What matters were raised?
Mrs Briggs responded “The Council liaises on a regular basis with Leicestershire Police in the normal course of business. Issues of concern in relation to Blogs have been discussed but only informally and no action has been requested”. 2.
5.
Did any Councillor on RCC seek to convict Martin Brookes with a Criminal ASBO?
Mrs Briggs responded “The Council has had no involvement in such action”. 3.
Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:
I notice the caveat “none on behalf of the Authority”, which seems to connect you to someone connected to Council; has someone written to the Mercury?
Mrs Briggs responded “I can only answer on behalf of the Authority and that is the answer”.
my comments:
1. that advice cost the council £2385.00
2. So if no action was requested why did Inspector J Monks feel the need to
take action?
3. Conservative Cabinet Member Councillor Gene Plews did, he claimed in
a rather fictitious police statement, I "have destroyed Oakham" and was part
of a group made of 9 people made up of Town Councillors, The Mayor then
Cllr Joyce Lucas and ex Mayor Paul Beech and their cronies, last year,
Class A bullying, I was not happy and neither were the CPS.
2) Bevan Brittan has published an email from Cllr Richardson to Kim Sawyer dated 15 November 2012 in which he states:
2.The second disciplinary meeting (of Aman Mehra) was on 14 June 2012.
1.Who requested this meeting? Why?
2.Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with the erstwhile monitoring officer and compliance officer of RCC? Is this true?
3.If this meeting was held at the request of Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem confidentiality so:
a) Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?
b) What were those concerns?
Mrs Briggs responded “Mr Mehra was the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation which had not concluded. The meeting which took place on 14th June 2012 related to that ongoing disciplinary investigation. The meeting was not held at the request of Mr Mehra”.
There was no supplementary question.
3)
Bevan Brittan report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4 states:
“We have previously advised the Council ……”
Can this report be said to be independent when:
Bevan Brittan have clearly advised the Council on previous occasions?
b)
I understand Bevan Brittan have failed to talk to Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright when compiling this report. Can this be deemed wholly independent if Bevan Brittan have failed to ascertain the other half of the argument and case brought against these Councillors by RCC?
c)
Since all liaison with Bevan Brittan only outlined RCC’s complaint was it not a complete waste of public monies?
Mrs Briggs responded “The report has been prepared by a nationally prominent firm of Solicitors instructed under normal client care conditions. The firm is independent of the Council. The only previous connection was through similarly arms-length instruction.
They were instructed to advise on the possible legal options which the Council might wish to consider, not to undertake a full investigation.”
Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:
The Chairman invited the Local Government Partner, Bevan Brittan LLP,
Mr Keith-Lucas to respond.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
New Statesman, Should public authorities be able to sue for libel? David Allen Green, Rutland County Council
RSSShould public authorities be able to sue for libel?
The remarkable legal advice given to Rutland County Council suggests that councils can now sue - and threaten to sue - for libel. We should worry about the potential "chilling effect" of this.
By David Allen Green Published 10 January 2013 11:51
Bognor - whose case was buggered by the House of Lords in 1993.
However, this sensible legal safeguard appears to be under threat. The City lawyers advising Rutland County Council are saying that the recently enacted Localism Act has changed the legal position, and now it is open to public bodies to freely sue - and threaten to sue - for libel.
Section 1 of the Localism Act provides for a "general power of competence". In particular, the Act says that a "local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do".
It is not clear what this actually means, and the use of the imprecise word "generally" makes the scope of the provision inherently uncertain. But what the external lawyers to Rutland County Council have taken it to mean is that a council can sue for defamation when it could not do so before. And, interestingly, it is three of Rutland Council's own councillors which the council is considering whether to sue.
The advice of the lawyers is set out in full here (pdf). The possibility of an action in defamation is set out at paragraph 11:
Some 20 years ago the Court of Appeal held that a local authority is not entitled to issue a defamation claim in its own name in connection with statements that damage the reputation of the authority as a whole (rather than the reputation of its individual officers or members)4 and this has been the accepted law. However, in our view, this principle has been overturned by the general power of competence granted to local authorities by section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”). This provision was brought into force on 18 February 2012 and gives a local authority the power to do anything which an individual generally may do. An individual has the power to issue a defamation claim in its own name, and the 2011 Act contains no restriction which would prevent an authority from doing so. Given the extent to which a local authority is now dependent on its public reputation for its ability to secure external funding, to attract competitive tenders for provision of services, or to recruit outstanding officers, it seems quite appropriate that the 2011 Act should now have brought the law up to date with the commercial reality.However, this advice is not only illiberal, it seems misconceived.
First, it was not the Court of Appeal which made the ruling which is referred to, it was in fact the House of Lords. The case was Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers and it was a unanimous decision of five Law Lords - including Lord Goff and Lord Browne-Wilkinson, two of the greatest common law judges of the post-war era.
The Law Lords held that, as a matter of public policy, Derbyshire County Council was not able to sue for defamation. There would be, the Law Lords explained, an adverse effect on freedom of expression if a public body could sue in respect of unwanted criticism. The point could not have been made more clear: "a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action of damages for defamation".
So does section 1 of the Localism Act now "overturn" this unequivocal statement of a very strong House of Lords? Are the external lawyers of Rutland Council right?
With the proviso that law is ultimately what the courts say it is, and so any view on what is an untested point of law is a matter of opinion, it would appear that Rutland Council's lawyers have got this important point badly wrong.
The Law Lords in Derbyshire did not decide the case on what lawyers would call the "vires" (or powers) of a public body. It was instead decided on an altogether different basis: that it should be public policy that councils cannot sue. The Lordships did not doubt that corporations could, in principle, sue for libel; it was just that a certain class of corporations were not able to do so. The 1972 case which said otherwise - Bognor Regis Urban District Council v. Campion - was expressly stated to have been wrongly decided. In effect, their Lordships said "Bugger Bognor" and in a comprehensive review of domestic and foreign case law held that freedom of expression was always more important.
Accordingly, the Localism Act is irrelevant to the Derbyshire decision. It deals with a different legal issue. Section 1 does not create a right of action in tort which the House of Lords said no longer existed. Neither does it refer to public policy. In fact, it has nothing to do with whether a council can sue for libel, and it is worrying that a public authority is being advised that such a course of action is available to it.
Rutland Council is clearly divided. A small group of councillors - "the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party" - is noisily calling for transparency and openness in the council's dealings. Their latest statement accuses the council of significant wrongdoing. This in turn is denied by the council, who make counter accusations. At a distance, it is difficult to form a view on the merits of any of the accusations - and Rutland matters should, of course, be determined by Rutland people.
But what makes the matter of wider concern is the council's resort to legal advice on how to sue or otherwise legally threaten its very own councillors. For if Rutland Council can sue its critics for libel, then it would follow that any council would be able to also do so, and it would be a brave citizen that would want to be a test case in any action for libel. The 'chilling effect' will be enough to deter certain criticism.
Rutland Council meets this evening to discuss the legal advice it has received. Anyone with an interest in free expression and libel reform should follow what now happens. For if the majority of councillors vote for the council to sue for libel, then other councils will undoubtedly be tempted to follow the lead of Rutland, and it could be as if the Bognor case had never been buggered by their Lordships at all.
David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)